different clang and gcc behavior with pointers

Question

For example, we have the following simple code:

#include "stdio.h" int main() { int* pointer_to_check; printf("%x\n", pointer_to_check); return 0; }

With gcc, we will get zero at output (as for me, normal behavior, because pointer isn't associated with memory), but clang gives us a real address, which can be accessed without "segmentation fault".

I have two questions:

What is the normal behavior according to the C standard (and C++)?
Why does this happen?

In C++ using an indeterminate value is undefined behavor and so the behavior is unpredictable and can vary. It is also undefined behavior in C as well. — Shafik Yaghmour
– Shafik Yaghmour, Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 12:38
Cool Guy has the only correct answer. Just wanted to add that your compiler will report this kind of behavior. Try compiling with -Wall for either compiler... — Brian McFarland
– Brian McFarland, Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 13:02

Spikatrix · Accepted Answer · 2015-06-10 12:52:15Z

pointer_to_check to check is uninitialized. It points to some "random" location.

Accessing uninitialized variables leads to Undefined Behavior which means that anything can happen.

Also, pointers should be printed using the %p format specifier.

with gcc code, we will get zero at output

Anything can be the output. It is Undefined. You shouldn't rely on this behavior.

TartanLlama · Accepted Answer · 2015-06-10 12:37:54Z

This is undefined behaviour.

Pointers are not initialized when you declare them, so they could point anywhere. 0, 0xDEADBEEF or anything else are "valid" representations.

If you want the pointer to be initialized to null, do it explicitly:

int* pointer_to_check = nullptr;

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

different clang and gcc behavior with pointers

2 Answers 2

Comments

1 Comment

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

Comments

1 Comment

Linked

Related